Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I prefer douchepancakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Anyways, this is another case of retarded video gamers and their belief in entitlement to everything. No one has explained why Blizzard should have to cater to EVERY FUCKING MARKET ON THE ENTIRE PLANET Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Anyways, this is another case of retarded video gamers and their belief in entitlement to everything. No one has explained why Blizzard should have to cater to EVERY FUCKING MARKET ON THE ENTIRE PLANET I am still waiting for the explanation as to why they should alienate a good deal of markets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Because they always have. Why should have to reach every single market in the world when there's no precedent for it? There's 6-7 billion people in the world. Do you think they are trying to sell that many copies? No. Thus the term "target market." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 As the foundation to this little rant- I don't like the always online drm, or the Auction House. I was interested in Diablo 3, but I'm not a big fan of the series, and to me, those two were enough to be a dealbreaker, because I wasn't big-time into the product to begin with. That said.... Looking at the Auction House by itself or the Always Online by itself will not explain this story. The two are woven together like any fabric, they are tangled together, they reinforce each other. Take Diablo 2. I wasn't big into the game, but there was a fair bit of cheating, is my understanding. A fair few hacked items and things. I don't know how these were distributed SP vs. MP, but I know they were there. Now, take the Auction House. What would happen to the prices of these sold weapons if you could just hack a weapon for yourself? If you could simply tweak the code for a fantastic weapon? Obviously, the AH would collapse. And that would destroy the economy of the game. How do you keep this from happening? Make the game require a constant internet connection, so that no one can cheat the system. So that you can always monitor that shit. Now. The real question comes in as "why not have a separate SP mode that doesn't require internet, but can't be used in multi?" And that is where it gets more dark, in my opinion. The AH, as an existence, could feasibly just be to satisfy players. Sure, Blizzard is going to take a cut of every auction, but it'll probably be a pretty small cut. They'll make a profit, but no big deal. The big deal is that they're trapping SP players into this system as well. If there were an offline SP mode, then they wouldn't be able to sell AH items to those offline players- again, they would probably just hack for them. This is not speaking in absolutes, sure some people would still pay- or more likely, just not use the AH or cheating- but a good number would hack. And that number is a group of customers that they missed. That is the reason for the Always Online- so that they can FORCE people into using the AH if they want items they haven't had drop. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Anyways, this is another case of retarded video gamers and their belief in entitlement to everything. No one has explained why Blizzard should have to cater to EVERY FUCKING MARKET ON THE ENTIRE PLANET Really? I mean, c'mon! How many gallons of kool-aid did you drink before making that comment? OK, I expect a higher level of intelligence here than I do from the average Kotaku commenter so I'll make the same argument I've made a bunch of times over there in the hopes that you can see where all of us "retarded video gamers" are coming from. I'll make it as brief and civil as possible but I can't make any promises. WE ARE CONSUMERS - As consumers, we have 4 basic powers. We can buy a game, we can avoid a game, we can praise and we can complain. It seems with many gamers, and I think you fall under this umbrella, that if you complain about a game or say you're not buying a game that you're a whiner, a troll, "just raging", retarded or all of the above and more. The fact of the matter is that in many cases, those accusations against the people who complain or boycott a game are entirely false. How and why are patches and balance changes released? BECAUSE PEOPLE COMPLAIN. Nothing will change for the better for the consumer if the consumer sits on their arse and just accepts what is given to them. The opposite will often happen. Left to do as they please, businesses will often ignore and harm the consumer for their own gain. Complaining about and boycotting a game does more than simply provide one with a sense of pride in their principles but it draws attention to issues people have with a game so 1) other consumers can consider the complaint and make a more informed choice and 2) the publishers/developers, as well as other publishers/developers can take note and improve the next time around. Let's look at MW2. I'm sure you had a hearty laugh at the image of the steam group and I bet you think that the boycott and all the nerdrage did nothing. But what's this? Dedicated servers are back in the CoD series? Why yes, yes they are. Why would a developer that supposedly made a big investment in IWnet and denied the importance of dedicated servers go back to using them? It's almost as if someone complained and they listened. It's almost as if there were mass complaints and they listened. We're not retarded for being angry, we're not retarded for complaining and if anything, your willingness to accept a product regardless of any problems you may have with it goes towards showing, to me anyway, a lower level of intelligence than the people you're calling retarded. So what does that make you? A vegetable?....Actually, that seems quite appropriate. In short, no consumer is retarded for voicing problems with a product and no consumer is retarded for choosing to avoid purchasing that product (boycotting) on those grounds. As for the second part of your comment, where did anyone claim that Blizzard should have to cater to every market? Because India was mentioned? Are you saying that only places with an internet connection should be catered to? That's quite a limited market. Not only are you excluding places like India that you couldn't give two shits about but you're also excluding places in the primary markets (North America, Europe, et al) because you're demanding something that won't be a reality for most people for a good many years - an always-on internet connection. No one is asking Blizzard to go out of their way to cater to every single gamer and their mom. What people are asking and complaining about is that basic shit is being taken away from them - like the ability to play a singleplayer game offline, the ability to set up a LAN game without being connected to the internet (And yes, this is, or rather was, a basic fucking feature of multiplayer PC games). You're saying they don't have to reach every single market and I completely agree. There's one thing you seem to have failed to realise however, they're not even catering to the entirety of their core market. Think before you start throwing around the word retarded because I haven't seen you making any good case here whatsoever. All you've done is antagonise those of us that have a problem with this. Edited August 10, 2011 by MasterDex 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Anyways, this is another case of retarded video gamers and their belief in entitlement to everything. No one has explained why Blizzard should have to cater to EVERY FUCKING MARKET ON THE ENTIRE PLANET Because if they can cater to Market Y without alienating Market X, then that's just more customers for them. It'd be stupid not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Anyways, this is another case of retarded video gamers and their belief in entitlement to everything. No one has explained why Blizzard should have to cater to EVERY FUCKING MARKET ON THE ENTIRE PLANET Because if they can cater to Market Y without alienating Market X, then that's just more customers for them. It'd be stupid not to. I think the big question mark there is what publishers think Market X and Y wants vs. what the markets actually want. With Blizzard, we want multiplayer and coop, but it doesn't mean limit the entire game to only multiplayer and coop. With EA, we want stat tracking and friends lists, but we don't want to have to open the stat tracking website every time we want to play a game. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the bigger publishers are getting increasingly more alienated to what the community is looking for in their games. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the bigger publishers are getting increasingly more alienated to what the community is looking for in their games. Or rather they see that they have the power to force such things onto a player and increase their brand name. When you have to go to a website for stat tracking, you get more involved in the series, and it's harder to get out of your head. You get more hooked, buy more DLC, then you buy the next game. That's the line of thinking I am seeing more and more. Gamers aren't boycotting. Gamers are still lapping it up and thus developers push stuff like this out while still bitching about it. Sales speak volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgamemnonV2 Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Yeah, I'm sure it's REAL HARD to have an offline mode and a LAN option. For reals, yo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 If it's so easy then why aren't they doing it? Like I keep pointing out, they're not doing this simply because they feel like it. They didn't sit around at a meeting and go "Hey, how can we really piss off our fans? Let's take out offline and LAN!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 If you were actually keeping check you'd know their response to the fan response is "We didn't expect this to be a big deal for a lot of people." I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually added an offline mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgamemnonV2 Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I have "actually been keeping check." All that really tells me is that they're dumber than a bag of hammers. "Oh gee, I'm genuinely surprised that not everyone in the world has a T1 line that never fails. Am I the only one living in a mansion?" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 And this just brings up my point about not appealing to every single possible market. The people they are appealing to are people who really do have always on connections who ironically are most of the people who bitch about stuff like this. Their sales lie in countries where this isn't going to be an actual physical problem but rather it's only a PR problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgamemnonV2 Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Your douchebaggery is always enjoyable. I'm not sure why you didn't just come out and say, "BLIZZARD ONLY CARES ABOUT UHMER'KAH." Except any number of gamers living out of a big city in the States can probably tell you ISPs and connection rates are not always the greatest. And if Blizzard does not care about trying to make money off of the other 6.7 billion other people in the world then they're genuinely retarded. Every English-speaking country in the world has horrid ISP options (moreso for any English-speaking country that isn't the US). Their goldmine in South Korea is not excluded of this dilemma. And yet all of this can be solved with a simple offline option or a LAN option, and all you can do is cry bloody Burden of Proof. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) America? America is ranked how low for internet again compared to Europe, Japan, and South Korea? And if Blizzard does not care about trying to make money off of the other 6.7 billion other people in the world then they're genuinely retarded. I'd say that they're realistic. Every English-speaking country in the world has horrid ISP options (moreso for any English-speaking country that isn't the US) ISP options? Who cares about options? That's a bit irrelevant in this whole thing. Most European countries are very well connected. And yet all of this can be solved with a simple offline option or a LAN option, and all you can do is cry bloody Burden of Proof. You're overlooking something though: Who says Blizzard wants to solve it? Battlenet 2.0 isn't even structured for LAN. If anything this would come post-release and only if it doesn't sell and even then I honestly doubt LAN would ever be added. People have the power to speak with their wallets and as SC2 has shown people will bitch about LAN support... and still buy the game. Hell, support of SC2 e-gaming is through the roof for SC2 in areas outside of Korea. Now, the single player issue is one I can actually see changing after a few months much like we see DRM dropped in some cases after some time. I'm in favor of it on a personal level. There's also this to consider: How many D2 players played on BNET vs single player? If it was a majority back then... can you even imagine how high it's going to be on the BNET side now even if there was a theoretical SP option? Either way, why not just play something else when you don't have internet access, like Torchlight 2? FYI: When you call someone a douchebag, you become one yourself. Edited August 11, 2011 by Faiblesse Des Sens 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgamemnonV2 Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 America? America is ranked how low for internet again compared to Europe, Japan, and South Korea? Europe has shit Internet. Might want to get your facts straight there. And comparing Japan and South Korea when their average is double that of any other country? Yeah, real great standard. It's a good thing the majority of the world lives in those two countries, hyuck! People have the power to speak with their wallets... Can people stop saying this absolute trite? Did people "vote" with the RealID fiasco? Why exactly is it so damn taboo to offer criticism to a developer and hope rather that they actually listen instead of just wipe their ass with their money? How many D2 players played on BNET vs single player? If it was a majority back then... can you even imagine how high it's going to be on the BNET side now even if there was a theoretical SP option? Do you know how much fail this argument is? Even TODAY, where social gaming services are practically the norm, we usually find that fewer than 40% of people who have purchased a product don't even bother to utilize its online functions. Go check out some multiplayer-related achievements on Steam, specifically for L4D2, and let me know what you find. Either way, why not just play something else when you don't have internet access, like Torchlight 2? Hey, how about I just play Diablo III because it's not that difficult to set the game to work only client-side? FYI: When you call someone a douchebag, you become one yourself. Must be why everyone else gets downvoted as often as you do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Seeing you two fight over which one is the bigger douchebag... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicariousShaner Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Seeing you two fight over which one is the bigger douchebag... Count me in on the facepalming action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baconrath Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Seeing you two fight over which one is the bigger douchebag... Count me in on the facepalming action. Am I doing it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 FDS, you keep on bringing up how Blizzard don't have to appeal to every market but you haven't addressed my statement that they're not even addressing the entirety of their core market. You're also equating every person who complains and says they won't buy the game with all the people that buy the game. Sure, if we were to visualise things, we'd have a venn diagram but there's not complete overlap there. Some of us won't be buying Diablo III because of this. Also, it's not just about whether you can get internet or not, it's also about whether you have stable net or not and whether the servers are stable or not. Sure, Bnet 2.0 has had very few outages but add the people that will be playing Diablo III on top of that and you're going to increase the chances of server overloads. One of the biggest reasons I'm against things like this is because it presents a slippery slope. Already, we see id's Tim Willits coming out applauding the "always-on" connection and how long more before every game, single-player or not, requires you to be online? If none of this bothers you, fine but don't belittle the opinion of others just because you disagree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I can't really take any argument that Diablo III is likely to have unstable servers seriously. Blizzard is pretty much the world leader in "stable game server technology" right now. I think I've been unable to log into SC2 a SINGLE time outside of scheduled maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I can't really take any argument that Diablo III is likely to have unstable servers seriously. Blizzard is pretty much the world leader in "stable game server technology" right now. I think I've been unable to log into SC2 a SINGLE time outside of scheduled maintenance. I'm not disagreeing but add on the Diablo III playercount? Are Blizzard doing the opposite of what most do and overestimating the load? What about 10 years from now? I don't like to place my faith in things like this. I don't want to ever be locked out from using a product I've purchased because the ones who made it feel it isn't worth their time or money. Take Baldur's Gate for example. Imagine if anyone who bought the games now was locked out from enjoying the game because Bioware had demanded an always-on connection. I know that's even more absurd back then than it is now what with a lot of the world still being on 56k modems but it's still a bit silly to demand something like this for a game that many still view as a singleplayer game and would like to play it that way. There are just too many variables for me to feel comfortable paying for a game that demands an internet connection even though I'll be playing solo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I'm not disagreeing but add on the Diablo III playercount? Are Blizzard doing the opposite of what most do and overestimating the load? Judging by the latest WoW expansions and StarCraft 2, pretty much. I keep being amazed at how little issues there are at Blizzard launches nowadays. What about 10 years from now? I don't like to place my faith in things like this. I don't want to ever be locked out from using a product I've purchased because the ones who made it feel it isn't worth their time or money. Take Baldur's Gate for example. Imagine if anyone who bought the games now was locked out from enjoying the game because Bioware had demanded an always-on connection. I know that's even more absurd back then than it is now what with a lot of the world still being on 56k modems but it's still a bit silly to demand something like this for a game that many still view as a singleplayer game and would like to play it that way. There are just too many variables for me to feel comfortable paying for a game that demands an internet connection even though I'll be playing solo. Putting aside that Diablo I (1996) is still playable on the classic battle.net today, I do agree that I'd much rather be able to KNOW that I could - barring hardware/OS compatibility issues - always play the game... But to be honest, if I'm still playing Diablo III 10 years from release, I will have gotten my money's worth several times over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_S0MA_ Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) the country with the largest pool of professional game-hackers, does not extradite Edited August 30, 2011 by _S0MA_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.